prepared for the United States Senate Undelivered Address

Mr. President, it is taken for granted by everybody that education must occupy a prominent
place in the affairs of a democracy. Notwithstanding this fact, I am not at all sure
that the American people and even some of its lawmakers, fully realize the absolute
necessity of universal education in a democracy.

I recognize the fact that tremendous progress has been made in our attempt to educate
all of the people. I have had the good fortune to stand in the classroom as an instructor,
not simply as a supervisor, for half a century. Little else than a revolution has
taken place in the efforts of educators to plan and arrange courses of study that
are in harmony with the needs of American children. Within the last 25 years great
progress has been made in methods of teaching. However, no well-informed man could
maintain for a moment that we have, as yet, arrived at a science of education. The
science of education is in the making.

Everybody is familiar with the fact that vast sums of money are being expended in
the construction and maintenance of educational plants. Notwithstanding these evidences
of progress, the World War revealed a condition that was pathetic. Thousands and tens
of thousands of our soldiers could not even read or write. We have not yet recovered
from this shock. It would be unfair to charge this lamentable condition to the public
schools. This condition simply proves conclusively that the American people have not
yet awakened to an appreciation of the value of education.

When I use the term "education" I do not use it as an equivalent of schooling. The
two terms "education" and "schooling" are not synonymous. A village or city or State
may offer an immense amount of schooling; this does not mean that the educational
advantages are at all commensurate with the amount of schooling. In the minds of many
the expression, "I have no education," means "I have no schooling." Abraham Lincoln
did not have to exceed three months of schooling, but he was one of the best educated
men that America has ever produced. Schooling at its best in the United States frequently
has a tendency to make the acquisition of knowledge its chief objective. Such a view
is paralyzing is unsatisfactory. Education has to do with the enrichment of life,
and the enrichment of life depends upon productive thinking. Prof. Henry F. Osborne
says: "To think, to act, to create, these are our great impulses inherited from far
prehistoric past; these are the three objectives in the intellectual education of
American youth." The wonderful accomplishment of a Franklin, an Edison, a Burbank
hinge not upon schooling but upon education.

Within the last 20 or 25 years our high schools have multiplied above the rate of
increase in population. Likewise our colleges and universities have commanded the
attention of thousands of American youth whereas prior to that time they commanded
the attention of comparatively few. Dean Raymond Walters, of Swarthmore College, says
in an article entitled "Getting Into College":

"The American secondary schools since 1900 have increased in enrollment nine times
as fast as the population of the country. There are now some 12,000 public high schools
offering 4-year courses, with 2,500,000 pupils, of whom nearly 400,000 are graduated
each year. There are more than 2,100 private high schools and academies offering 4-year
courses, with total enrollments of 225,000 and some 35,000 graduates yearly.

"These figures explain the source of the college expansion in the past quarter of
a century the increase from 104,000 liberal-arts students in 1900 to approximately
500,000 this year. They explain the improved average preparation of college applicants
and likewise the present stricter enforcement of college entrance requirements and
selective procedure.

"As for the reasons which impel three students proportionally to go to college today
for one in the days of their fathers, there is the proverbial mixture of motives.
One likes to believe that there is at least a corresponding increase in those who
go because they love learning."

At first glance this might seem to constitute further evidence of educational progress.
Beyond a doubt it does indicate progress to some degree. Granting, however, that it
means much, that it is conclusive evidence of great progress, there remains in this
country the problem of educating the masses. In other words, the very lifeblood of
American democracy lies in the educational advantages which should be offered by the
public schools.

The "hewers of wood" and "carriers of water" have never received a square deal. Millions
and millions of dollars have been given to educational foundations; millions and millions
of dollars have been given to colleges and universities, but very little effort has
been made to take care of the great majority who can never hope to enroll in a high
school. The real educational problem for America to solve is the problem of enabling
the rural schools to provide a practical education through satisfactory courses of
study, through adequate equipment, through the best methods of instruction, through
the employment of well-trained teachers.

The correct thinking of a child is along lines precisely the same as is the correct
thinking of a Newton or a Huxley. In the rural schools the fundamentals must be employed
for developing in the child productive thinking. I concede that great progress has
been made along certain lines in the rural schools. But, broadly speaking, one great
problem in American education consists in revolutionizing our rural schools for a
larger degree of efficiency. Objectors will point to the "little red schoolhouse"
as the place where this great scientist, this great statesman, and that great inventor
received his early training as if there were some magic in the "little red schoolhouse."
The truth of the matter is Abraham Lincoln, like many other great men, made progress
in spite of the "little red schoolhouse."

In lines of industry and agriculture and commerce we have discarded some of the old
ways and adopted methods which are in harmony with present civilization. I am not
going to worry the Senate with concrete illustrations of the special weaknesses of
present rural education.

Another feature of education that has been neglected is adult education. Not infrequently,
when I have had occasion to suggest education to an inquirer, he says, "I am too old."
The notion widely prevails that education is for human beings from 5 to 21 years of
age that education is simply a preparation for life, whereas real education is life.
Education, as I have defined it, begins with the first breath of life and ends with
the last breath. When a human being ceases to do constructive thinking, ceases to
find new and better ways of living, he is as dead as any corpse in a cemetery. In
America our slogan ought to be "Education for all of the people all of the time."
Notwithstanding the frequent failure of the schools to educate, I offer as a collateral
slogan, "Schools for all of the people all of the time."

Adult education is not to be brought about by agencies of coercion or agencies of
control. When the educational philosophy of America is as broad as I have outlined,
there will be a demand for facilities whereby every man can secure the necessary advantages
through his own ambition and efforts. True, in our larger cities provision has been
made to conduct night schools whereby heads of families and members of families who
are past the legal school age can secure training in the arts of civilization and
in the fine art of making a living. There are skeptics who claim that adults care
little or nothing for these advantages. For 43 years I have conducted a unique school.
Not infrequently fathers and mothers and sons and daughters have attended the school
at the same time. In order to do this they have been obliged to make real sacrifices.
They have had to suppress their desire to own more acres of land, their desire to
have larger savings account; they have done this in order to pay their carfare, the
cost of living, and the cost of tuition at the Ferris Institute. I mention this concrete
example to show that when humans know that educational advantages are within their
reach, they improve them. Adults in their eagerness to acquire an education and because
of ruthless educational advertisers are robbed annually of more than $2,000,000. Dr.
George B. Strayer, professor of educational administration, Teachers College, Columbia
University, has this to say:

"Hundreds of thousands of people, adults, in the United States have been exploited
by private enterprises which have taken their money without an adequate appreciation
of what the job of teaching them was."

This indicates that adult education is a problem, and at present the necessary information
is not at the command of the thousands of adults who are hungry for the advantages
of an education.

When these reforms are suggested, taxpayers emit extra howls about the cost. The truth
of the matter is, the method for America to pursue, or any other country that wants
to possess even material riches, is to furnish opportunities for real education. Very
few patriotic citizens find fault with the cost of enlightenment. It should be remembered
that in the last 25 years civilization has undergone a tremendous change. We have
annihilated time and distance. The automobile, wireless, radio, movie, and the uses
of electricity have revolutionized the old environment.

Our educational problem instead of being simplified has become more complex and difficult.

Thus far I have chiefly referred to problems of rural and adult education. This is
only a beginning of an outline of educational needs. I am not going to discuss other
problems in education. Many of them that I might discuss are recognized by educators
and laymen alike. It is only natural that the great army of teachers should take the
initiative with reference to discovering a means of solving some of the great educational
problems that confront us. They are in daily touch with American youth. It may be
that they are not statesmen; it may be that they overestimate what the Federal Government
should do and can do in the way of solving some of their problems.

Proponents of a Department of Education

I am going to quote from a few of the great men and women who appeared at the joint
hearings of the Committee on Education during the Sixty-Ninth Congress and give in
part their arguments for a department of education. I make these quotations because
these men and women have offered what seems to me to be convincing argument for a
department of education.

"It provides and here is the real significance of the measure that the department
of education shall collect statistics and facts, and shall conduct researches and
investigations, and that the results of the evidence so collected shall be made available
to the people of the several States."

Dr. Charles H. Judd, director of the School of Education of the University of Chicago,
said:

"I believe that if we had some central agency that could make us aware of our virtues
and that could point out with perfect fairness and accuracy the results of some of
our local experiments, that we could bring about exactly what we want, and certainly
it would be a step in the direction of making our schools the best institutions."

Dr. S. P. Capen, chancellor of the University of Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., said:

"It is also patent that these several divisions of the Government that deal with education
have no relation whatsoever with one another and are, for the most part, each ignorant
of the other's business. We want to see the enterprises brought together so that what
the Government does in education will at least represent a unified point of view and
a unified policy. I think that is the first thing we want."

"Education as we now have it in the United States is the chief occupation of more
than a quarter of our population. There are 26,000,000 of our population in schools.
There are over 800,000 teachers in the United States. We are spending over $2,000,000,000
a year on education. It is one of the leading industries, if not our leading industry."

Miss Selma Borchardt, legislative secretary of the American Federation of Teachers,
said:

"One gentleman told me last summer that the reason he opposed a Federal department
of education was because we have no national educational policy, and that therefore
he would oppose the establishment of a Federal department. I asked him if we had a
national agricultural policy. He said: 'Certainly we have; the wiping out of plant
and animal diseases.' Well, it seems to me that the wiping out of illiteracy, the
wiping out of lower educational standards, is as much a national policy as the wiping
out of plant and animal diseases, because we think that our children are as deserving
of attention as plants and animals."

"The thing I want to ask you men to do is this: To think of education as the finest
and the biggest and the best thing in our national life and to complete the job by
crowning it with a national dome that shall give us a leadership and a system of American
education that shall comprehend the development of the lowest, simplest hamlet, village,
town, State, and Nation not to dominate but to lead; and we ask you as a step in that
direction to give this bill a chance."

"The trouble about this rural school problem is that the farmer and the average teacher
look upon the country school as a little house on a little ground where a little teacher
at a little salary for a little while teaches little children little things in a little
way."

Doctor McBrien continues:

"That is severe, but the trouble with it is that it is so true. For example, take
the great State of New York; in it there are 3,000 one-teacher schools with an average
daily attendance of 10 or less; and I think there are 1,500 with an average daily
attendance of 5 or less. I speak of New York just because it is a great State. I do
not want to take you out into the wild and woolly West where we have not had the time
to develop yet out of some things that are not so desirable."

"We have a Secretary of Agriculture, and I believe in that department. It is promotional;
but the Secretary of Agriculture has never attempted to standardize the method of
raising cotton in the South; he has never undertaken to standardize the method of
raising wheat in the West; but through that great department information has been
disseminated in the agricultural sections, and the localities have been stimulated
until the country is more prosperous on account of the workings of that department.
And so I may say of Commerce and Labor. What is the department of the Government recognized
by the world as standing for the cultural and the spiritual among our people? I submit
this, gentlemen, as one thought that has not been developed by any other person that
I have heard discuss this question."

John H. Cowles, grand commander of the Supreme Council Scottish Rite of Freemasonry,
Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, says:

"Finally, I have no fear of federalization, for the provisions of the bill give no
more authority to the department of education than is given to the Departments of
Agriculture or Commerce in fact, not so much and so far there has been no charge of
federalizing the crops, the stock, the mines, the roads, or any industry, while the
helpfulness rendered is unquestionable."

"With reference to the field of research, I want to point out, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee, that there is no possibility that this particular field will be
entered into effectively by any State. I say that because I have never seen any indication
that any State is undertaking that particular work for the State. Even our wealthier
States, our States that have the larger State organizations, have not established
departments or divisions of research in education. Even if they were to do so, it
would be very extravagant for the country as a whole, because the field of research
of which I speak is a field of professional research, a field of technical research;
and whatever is done, for one State is likewise necessary to have done for another
State. We must grant, of course, that there are very marked differences among the
States with reference to administrative procedure, with reference to the ways in which
they will desire to organize their schools, with reference to the extent to which
they will care to carry forward education and support it. Those things are matters
entirely to be determined by the several States, and I am very certain always will
be so determined. But when you come to the technical practices of the schools, there
is not one method of teaching reading that is better for the children of Massachusetts,
and another method of teaching reading that is better for the children of Illinois,
and still another that is better for teaching that subject in California. The teaching
profession has come into that scientific stage where studies are greatly desired in
these fields; and it is because I believe that a Federal department of education can
so greatly help in these ways that I believe it is a good thing that this department
should be established."

Mr. Black of New York, in questioning Dr. C. R. Mann, director of the American Council
on Education, asked:

"In case this bill does not become a law, do you think it might be advisable to have
a provision to the effect that the money used in the Bureau of Education should be
used for the rural school systems of the country?"

"Doctor Mann. It is not necessary, because the things that are the subjects of distinct
investigation at the present time are, what are the processes of learning reading,
writing, arithmetic, and geography, the fundamental things that are specified."

I now quote from the 1925 report of the Commissioner of Education. This is not quoted
as a direct endorsement of the bill for a department of education. It is simply to
indicate what some of the present educational needs are. The report says:

"Those responsible for schools administration in the United States are in great need
of assistance in certain important fields. At the present time (1925) adequate provision
is direly needed for study in the fields of curriculum organization, school finance,
buildings and construction, teacher training, and secondary education."

President Coolidge, in his recent message (1927), said:

"For many years it has been the policy of the Federal Government to encourage and
foster the cause of education. Large sums of money are annually appropriated to carry
on vocational training. Many millions go into agricultural schools. The general subject
is under the immediate direction of a Commissioner of Education. While this subject
is strictly a State and local function, it should continue to have the encouragement
of the National Government. I am still of the opinion that much good could be accomplished
through the establishment of a department of education and relief, into which would
be gathered all of these functions under one directing member of the Cabinet."

Opponents of a Department of Education

In the foregoing quotations I have tried to deal with different aspects of the bill
under consideration. I now make quotations from those who are opposed to the bill.

Dr. Frank J. Goodnow, president of Johns Hopkins University, made the following statement:

"This tendency will be stagnation, standardization, the termination of this process
of experimentation as it is going on at the present time, because then everything
will be uniform. Now, one State has one idea with regard to education; other States
have other ideas; and we find out, through a process of experimentation with these
various ideas, whether or not we can make advances. But what I fear will come from
what, as I see it, will be the result of the passage of this bill is a standardization,
a stagnation, which is going to be extremely bad for our educational system. The period
of experimentation is apt to cease, and that is what we need and what we always will
need, as I see it."

"It would be a first step, and a very important one, toward complete centralization,
and thus open the way to socialism, and who can tell, to dictatorship and tyranny.
Centralization is like a gear. Once enforced on one point, it will gradually extend
to and corrupt all our social organizations. This is the target at which the socialists
aim. But this centralization must be fought by every true American with all possible
energy because it is utterly unpatriotic."

I am not sure that Senator Borah was present at the hearings; however, he has said:

"The principle once admitted, the agency once established, the Federal power will
ultimately direct, guide, dictate, and control the whole educational system, from
the mother's knee to the final departure from the campus. Indeed, that was the original
conception of the Federal plan. The original plan and arguments contemplated exactly
that, to wit, that the National Government should be omnipotent in educational affairs."

Again I quote from Senator Borah:

"The Government depends at last upon the intelligence and character of the average
citizen. His constant, vigilant interest in public matters is indispensable to the
success of this great experiment. The idea that the Government should be a universal
provider and guarantor against all risks and wants of human existence is at war with
our whole theory of government. The theory that there is a wisdom at Washington with
reference to purely personal and local concerns superior to the wisdom found at home
and in the communities or the States is not the theory upon which our Government was
organized."

Harry Pratt Judson, president emeritus of the University of Chicago, said:

"I am strongly opposed to the pending education bill. Education belongs to the States.
The Federal Government can be useful, no doubt, by gathering information as to educational
procedure and disseminating this information among the States. But this can best be
done through a properly supported bureau of the Interior Department. This bureau should
be organized on a strictly scientific basis, like the Bureau of Standards. In the
last-named bureau there have been but two heads since its organization some quarter
of a century since, and the single change was made because the head resigned in order
to accept the presidency of an important educational institution. Should the Bureau
of Education be converted into a department with its head in the Cabinet there is
the certainty of a change with every change of administration. What should be a scientific
bureau becomes a political department. I deprecate turning over Federal educational
agencies to partisan politics, which is the essence of this bill."

"I believe that in the sphere of the mind we should have absolutely unlimited competition.
There are certain spheres where competition may have to be checked, but not when it
comes to the sphere of the mind; and it seems to me that we ought to have this state
of affairs; that every State should be faced by the unlimited competition in this
sphere of other States; that each one should try to provide the best for its children
that it possibly can; and, above all, that all public education should be kept healthy
at every moment by the absolutely free competition of private schools and church schools."

A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard University, said:

"I am opposed to the creation of a Federal secretary of education, because I believe
it would almost inevitably bring education into politics; or, in other words, make
the appointment to that office a political one, whereas it seems to me that it is
important to keep the educational as well as the scientific work of the Federal Government
in the hands of the experts. Moreover, I much doubt the wisdom of increasing the power
of activity of the Federal Government in questions of education, which depend, I think,
very much on sectional conditions. In the third place, action by the Federal Government
is almost sure to mean a certain bureaucratic uniformity, whereas it seems to me that
we need in this country a wide diversity in educational experimentation, for about
education we talk much and know little."

James H. Ryan, representing the National Catholic Educational Association said:

"There is no reason to appeal to Washington for assistance in school matters as there
is no need to appeal in matters of public health, public morality, or police and fire
protection. To do so is to hand over to a central bureaucracy control over local matters.
A central bureau may do some things better than local agencies."

"In the long run the effects of bureaucracy are uniformly vicious. With the loss of
local control goes inevitably loss of interest in local problems. Dependence on Washington
will certainly result in a series of so-called national standards of education, national
courses of study, national educational methods, national inspection in a word, in
a series of interference with the school which would paralyze local initiative and
impose upon the community methods and standards wholly out of harmony with local needs
and demands."

In questioning Edward S. Dore, president of the National Catholic Alumni Federation,
Senator Ferris had the following to say:

"But that tendency [to create a stereotyped mentality by standardization] is not peculiar
to the State nor to the Nation. I am in very close touch with that set of conditions.
Why is the drive that way? Why is it that as soon as a man becomes a secretary of
education in the Cabinet he should do these damnable things? What in human nature
obsesses him? I have heard so much about what will happen if this bill is enacted
that I ask, What is the matter with human nature? You do not wish to say that the
other members of the Cabinet have blossomed out into archenemies of the National Government.
Why should a secretary of education be so much more likely to go wrong?"

The leading opponents of this bill are not from the army of public-school teachers.
This fact is indeed significant.

Political Influence

The opponents of this bill seem to be very much alarmed over the prospect of endangering
the cause of education through political influence. It is true that the heads of the
different departments are appointed by the President. If we have a Democratic President,
of course the appointees for the Cabinet will be Democrats. If we have a Republican
President, the appointees will be Republicans.

The only possible basis for prophecy rests on what has happened in years gone by.
So far as I am able to learn, the departments have not suffered seriously because
of political bias. When a department has suffered it has been because of moral turpitude.
To be perfectly frank about the matter, when you get down to "brass tacks," there
isn't enough difference between the two great parties to permit any special worry
over politics. If there are well-defined differences between the two great parties,
they are not generally known to the public. It is difficult to imagine that a President
of the United States, whether Republican or Democrat, would appoint a mere politician
to the position of secretary of education. This would indicate that the office of
President is losing its old-time importance. We hear the cry, "Keep the schools out
of politics." The schools have always been in politics and always will be in politics.
Sometimes this works injury to the schools, sometimes benefit. Much depends upon the
quality of politics. The great army of teachers are American citizens and have a right
to be in politics.

Public opinion is sufficient to ward off every danger that can arise from having the
head of a department a Republican or a Democrat. The personnel of the department would
not be seriously modified by a change in the secretary of education. There is no more
occasion for alarm over the political attitude of a secretary of education than over
a Commissioner of Education or a Secretary of Agriculture. It is true that with every
administration there would be a change in the secretary of education. This cry of
political influence is nothing more nor less than a scarecrow.

Standardization

Another objection that is raised by the opponents of this bill is the anticipated
malicious influence of the standardization of education. Organization, specialization,
and standardization constitute the order of the day. The most serious consequences
of standardization in education have been brought about by other than governmental
influences.

I am not going to cite concrete instances. The matter of standardization is a matter
of emphasis. It is difficult to imagine that educators are to abandon all hope of
a science of education. Human nature is essentially the same in Maine, in California,
in Minnesota, in Louisiana. It is difficult to imagine that there is one best method
of teaching reading, arithmetic, the English language, history, geography, and civics
in one State and an entirely different method for teaching these subjects in another
State. If there is a science of education, there is one best method. When this best
method is discovered and adopted by the 48 States, then we have efficient standardization.
This form of standardization benefits the entire school population of 26,000,000 children.
To fight scientific standardization is to fight progress. It is far better for the
success of education to carry on research work and find out what methods and what
equipment are best for the education of American youth. It is exceedingly difficult to estimate the saving in time and
money that follows efficient, scientific methods.

State Rights

In present decades there has been a revival of the State-rights doctrine. The individual
State seems to be jealous of the functions of the Federal Government.

The opponents of this bill almost invariably declare that the secretary of education
would control education in the 48 States. The Departments of Commerce, Labor, and
Agriculture have rendered invaluable service to the 48 States, and the element of
control has not been a dominating factor. There isn't any more reason for supposing
that the secretary of education will exercise control in any other sense than the
three departments mentioned above exercise it. The advocates of this bill deplore
vicious control as enthusiastically as do the opponents of the bill.

The future progress of the world depends to no small degree upon research, and it
is through research that science and invention have made marvelous progress; in fact,
more progress in the last 75 years than in all previous centuries.

The opponents of the bill, with but few exceptions, pay tribute to the Bureau of Education.
I am not going to take the time to argue the inability of a bureau hidden away in
the Department of the Interior to do the great work that is demanded by our educational
agencies. The larger part of the evidence has one trend. Many of the opponents say
that if necessary funds could be provided for the Bureau of Education the work of
a department of education would be uncalled for. The fact that the bureau never has
had adequate funds is sufficient argument to prove that there isn't any immediate
prospect of its ever having sufficient funds.

Private Schools

The opponents of the bill are fearful that the independence of private schools will
be disturbed by establishing a department of education. I have been engaged in private-school
work for half a century. I realize that the testimony of a single representative is
of little value. I have observed legislation in several of the States in relation
to private schools. I am positive, however, that so far as my own experience in handling
a great private secondary school is concerned, the supervision of private schools
by the State has been beneficial.

It is impossible for me to see how the Federal Government would fail to conserve the
best interests of all private schools whether they are secular or religious. Public
opinion points in one direction and that is in permitting all private schools that
degree of freedom which is conducive to the welfare of the State and the welfare of
the Federal Government.

In the arguments of the opponents of this bill the factor of fear seems to dominate.
The dynamics of the opposition is primarily emotional. For some unaccountable reason
the opponents of the bill seem to be "scared stiff" over the prospect of giving the
Federal Government an opportunity to better the educational opportunities for American
youth.

Research, the Mainspring of Progress

This applies to our commercial development, to our agricultural advance, and to educational
progress. There isn't anything mysterious about research. For example, in industry
it means nothing more nor less than "intelligent investigation into how to do practical
things; if they are new, how they can be done in the best way; if they are old, how
in a better way. In a word, it is invention. It is the most practical thing in the
world."

The United States Chamber of Commerce says that "the amount expended annually by American
manufacturers in conducting laboratory research alone is $35,000,000." Unquestionably
this figure is well on the conservative side. This same authority places the annual
saving to American industry by research at a half a billion dollars.

In the field of medical science we must appeal to the imagination in order to appreciate
the tremendous change in the last 50 years. The name of Pasteur is familiar to every
physician. He wrought little less than a revolution in the field of scientific research.
He was not a physician, but his researches have contributed more to medical science
than the researches of any other one man.

In the last 25 years agriculture has undergone a revolution. That does not mean that
there isn't a farm problem. It simply means that research is of tremendous value in
every form of human activity. It has recently been estimated that the aggregate producing
power of persons engaged in agriculture has been increased 25 per cent since 1900.
Secretary Jardine says that these changes are attributable chiefly to the results
of scientific discovery. Whatever view a Congressman may take of the value of research
in education, he must admit that in the lines I have already mentioned it has been
of gigantic importance. I hold that the value of research would be even more valuable
in education than in the fields already mentioned.

In what I have already said about research, the element of governmental control has
not been an important factor. There is no reason that I can discover why educational
research should lead to the dire results that the opponents of this bill outline.

The marked weakness of this age lies in the handling of our distinctive human interests.
We handle the material things of this world almost as if by magic. The human mind,
however, has received comparatively little consideration. Mental resources have never
been adequately explored; mental possibilities are at this hour undiscovered.

If there was no other argument in favor of this bill than the one that I offer with
reference to research, there would be sufficient reason for passing it. It is clearly
evident to me that as a question of economy it is a thousand times better that this
lack of research should be corrected by the Federal Government than by the individual
States working separately. It has been quite clearly indicated that the States work
at cross purposes, so to speak. It is important that in this field of research there
be unification.

After the experience we have had with the Bureau of Education, a magnificent institution,
we can see plainly that if education is to have the attention it deserves, it must
be through the agency of a department of education. I have been personally acquainted
with two of the Commissioners of Education, William T. Harris and Philander Priestly
Claxton. No man can pay higher tribute to these two men than I. Very likely I could
pay as high a tribute to some of the others if I had had the honor and good fortune
of knowing them as I have known these two men. It seems to me that it is a waste of
argument to say that if the Bureau of Education had the money, it would be able to
do the work that this bill provides for. The Bureau of Education never has had the
money and it is reasonable to say that it will never get the necessary funds.